The article discusses the evolution and enforcement of "terms of use" in electronic contracting, particularly focusing on "clickwrap," "shrinkwrap," and "browsewrap" licenses. These licenses are used to control the terms of use for software or websites, and their enforcement has become increasingly common in recent years. The author highlights that while courts have generally accepted the enforceability of clickwrap and shrinkwrap licenses, browsewrap licenses—where users are not explicitly presented with the terms but are bound by them through their use of the website—have been more controversial. The article argues that courts have been more willing to enforce browsewrap licenses against sophisticated commercial entities, often competitors, than against individual consumers. This distinction raises concerns about the fairness and practicality of such enforcement, especially in business-to-business transactions, where the number of potential contracts and the risk of overlapping terms can be significant. The author suggests that the enforcement of browsewrap licenses may need to be limited to specific contexts and that broader issues need to be addressed to ensure fair and consistent application of these terms.The article discusses the evolution and enforcement of "terms of use" in electronic contracting, particularly focusing on "clickwrap," "shrinkwrap," and "browsewrap" licenses. These licenses are used to control the terms of use for software or websites, and their enforcement has become increasingly common in recent years. The author highlights that while courts have generally accepted the enforceability of clickwrap and shrinkwrap licenses, browsewrap licenses—where users are not explicitly presented with the terms but are bound by them through their use of the website—have been more controversial. The article argues that courts have been more willing to enforce browsewrap licenses against sophisticated commercial entities, often competitors, than against individual consumers. This distinction raises concerns about the fairness and practicality of such enforcement, especially in business-to-business transactions, where the number of potential contracts and the risk of overlapping terms can be significant. The author suggests that the enforcement of browsewrap licenses may need to be limited to specific contexts and that broader issues need to be addressed to ensure fair and consistent application of these terms.